Chatlog 2011-02-17

14:56:47 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfa
14:56:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-rdfa-irc
14:56:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
14:56:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDFa Working Group Teleconference
14:56:52 <trackbot> Date: 17 February 2011
14:57:17 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0136.html
14:57:35 <manu1> Chair: Manu
14:59:08 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has now started
14:59:15 <Zakim> +ShaneM
14:59:45 <Zakim> +??P2
14:59:53 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P3
14:59:54 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a party named '??P3'
14:59:55 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P2
14:59:55 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
15:00:07 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:00:07 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:00:09 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:20 <manu1> scribenick: tinkster
15:01:30 <Steven> Steven has joined #rdfa
15:01:46 <Zakim> + +47.85.583.aaaa
15:01:48 <Knud> Knud has joined #rdfa
15:01:52 <tinkster1> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:52 <Zakim> +tinkster1; got it
15:01:57 <tinkster1> Zakim, mute me
15:01:57 <Zakim> tinkster1 should now be muted
15:02:12 <Zakim> +Knud
15:02:26 <Zakim> + +49.631.205.75.aabb
15:02:44 <tinkster> Zakim, unmute me
15:02:44 <Zakim> tinkster1 should no longer be muted
15:02:47 <Benjamin> zakim, aabb is me
15:02:47 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
15:02:49 <tinkster> Zakim, mute me
15:02:49 <Zakim> tinkster1 should now be muted
15:04:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:27 <webr3> Zakim, i am IPcaller
15:04:27 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:04:34 <Steven_> Steven_ has joined #rdfa
15:04:45 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617
15:04:45 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made
15:04:46 <Zakim> +Steven
15:04:51 <webr3> zakim, who is here
15:04:51 <Zakim> webr3, you need to end that query with '?'
15:04:54 <webr3> zakim, who is here?
15:04:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, tinkster1 (muted), Knud, Benjamin, [IPcaller], Steven
15:04:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see Steven_, Knud, Steven, RRSAgent, Benjamin, ShaneM, ivan, webr3, manu1, tinkster, manu, Zakim, trackbot
15:06:08 <manu1> Topic: Default Profile URLs
15:06:46 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/SDFGHJ
15:07:18 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1
15:07:35 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/xhml-rdfa-1.1
15:07:54 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1
15:08:20 <tinkster> Ivan: W3C will hopefully allow us to use profile URIs like the ones I'm posting.
15:08:30 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The two default profile URLs should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 and http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1
15:08:39 <ivan> +1
15:08:40 <webr3> +1
15:08:41 <manu1> +1
15:08:41 <Knud> +1
15:08:42 <Benjamin> +1
15:08:45 <tinkster> +1
15:08:58 <Steven_> +1
15:09:01 <ShaneM> +1
15:09:04 <manu1> RESOLVED: The two default profile URLs should be http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1 and http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1
15:09:24 <manu1> ACTION: Ivan to setup the default RDFa profile URLs with the systems team
15:09:24 <trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Setup the default RDFa profile URLs with the systems team [on Ivan Herman - due 2011-02-24].
15:09:30 <Zakim> -Steven
15:09:42 <Steven_> zakim, dial steven-617
15:09:42 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; the call is being made
15:09:43 <Zakim> +Steven
15:09:57 <tinkster> Steven_: do we need the "1.1" in the URI?
15:12:15 <tinkster> manu: we need a version number in case we want to remove terms/prefixes in future versions.
15:13:27 <tinkster> ... and creating an "rdfa-latest" profile would create incompatibilities in documents when it changes.
15:14:19 <tinkster> Ivan: for most people, who will not express the profile explicitly, this breakage will happen anyway as parsers will start using a new profile by default.
15:15:10 <tinkster> Steven: just wanted to make sure this had been thought through.
15:15:21 <tinkster> manu: (chair hat off) I want the version number in there because not having it in there opens us up to a number of issues that we've discussed before as being very bad (never being able to remove prefixes or terms, never being able to change semantics for RDFa 2.0+, etc). Any objections if we keep it the same?
15:15:21 <tinkster> No objections...
15:15:22 <manu1> Topic: Hypertext Coordination Group Participation
15:16:37 <tinkster> manu: we'd like to participate in the co-ordination group.
15:17:59 <tinkster> (people discuss Peter Mika's RDFa usage data)
15:18:32 <tinkster> manu: huge sample size; lots of non-trivial uses of RDFa.
15:18:58 <tinkster> ... at least 430,000,000 pages our of 12B using RDFa, all of which express non-trivial semantic objects, use xmlns: - strong uptake.
15:20:41 <webr3> q+
15:18:58 <tinkster> General discussion about CURIEs in HTML5 - people have the choice in RDFa 1.1 to use full URIs or CURIEs and people aren't messing up xmlns:
15:20:49 <manu1> ack [IPcaller]
15:23:34 <manu1> Topic: Last Call Review
15:23:58 <tinkster> manu: any issues we've missed?
15:24:29 <tinkster> Toby: I've not yet provided responses for mine (draft for one, no draft for the other yet)
15:24:33 <ivan> ISSUE-70?
15:24:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-70 -- RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments about versioning from Jeni Tennison -- open
15:24:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/70
15:24:47 <tinkster> ShaneM: we've not discussed issue 70 yet.
15:25:01 <tinkster> manu: mostly seems to be editorial/won't fix?
15:24:47 <tinkster> ShaneM: I disagree - how do we respond to her @version question?
15:25:20 <manu1> Subtopic: ISSUE-70: RDFa Core 1.1 LC comments about versioning from Jeni Tennison
15:26:03 <manu1> scribenick: manu
15:26:17 <manu1> Ivan: I think we discussed some of this before
15:26:54 <manu1> Ivan: I think what she's asking for is that processors should be able to recognize whether or not they're processing a 1.0 vs. 1.1 document.
15:26:55 <webr3> q+
15:27:01 <manu1> ack [IPcaller]
15:28:04 <manu1> Nathan: As far as I can tell, I think she's saying that if she uses the same processor for a RDFa 1.0 vs 1.1 document there's no way for her to tell the difference between the two?
15:28:19 <manu1> ShaneM: There is a @version attribute in 1.1 - but only in XHTML
15:31:39 <manu1> Manu: ... <explains what he thinks that Jenny wants> ... One of the things is impossible to support - we can't support an RDFa 1.0 processor processing a RDFa 1.1 document and producing a subset of the triples of an RDFa 1.1 processor because of the backwards-incompatible changes. We'd need a switch. People don't use @version.
15:33:58 <ShaneM> Isn't this what she wants? http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#a_history
15:36:25 <ShaneM> we said "There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0""
15:37:29 <manu1> ShaneM: @version is required for XHTML+RDFa 1.0 documents.
15:37:34 <manu1> Ivan: We don't say that
15:37:46 <manu1> ShaneM: I didn't mean to imply that - that's how my processor works.
15:37:56 <manu1> Ivan: My processor doesn't do anything w/ @version attribute
15:37:56 <manu1> Manu: Mine either.
15:38:39 <manu1> Ivan: I don't see any way to allow RDFa 1.0 processors to process RDFa 1.1 documents w/ things like @profile and @prefix etc.
15:39:28 <manu1> Ivan: I think what she's asking for is guidance, not a new processor feature that ensures that RDFa 1.0 processors can process RDFa 1.1 documents w/ RDFa 1.1 attributes.
15:39:35 <manu1> scribenick: tinkster
15:40:01 <tinkster> manu: does anyone believe that @version will help processors?
15:43:53 <tinkster> ivan: @version is useful for Jeni's first question, but useless for the second.
15:46:04 <tinkster> ShaneM: should we document techniques for processors to conform to 1.0 and 1.1?
15:46:28 <tinkster> ivan: we could mention @version as a switch for modes?
15:46:38 <tinkster> ShaneM: we could also use <!doctype>
15:47:03 <tinkster> ivan: in many XML processors, it's simpler to get the attribute than to find the doctype.
15:47:59 <tinkster> manu: i don't think we should change processing rules. we could add a section on compatibility though.
15:48:39 <tinkster> manu: overall i think our goal should be to tell people to just use 1.1.
15:48:43 <ivan> q+
15:48:52 <manu1> ack ivan
15:49:44 <tinkster> Ivan: for a conformant 1.1 processor, if i get a 1.0 document, what's the proper behaviour?
15:50:00 <tinkster> manu: process as 1.1.
15:50:01 <ShaneM> q+ to discuss 1.0 support
15:50:11 <manu1> ack ShaneM
15:50:11 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to discuss 1.0 support
15:51:24 <tinkster> ShaneM: if I see "1.0", then surely the correct behaviour is to treat it as 1.0. otherwise we're as bad as HTML5. ;-)
15:52:24 <tinkster> ivan: it's quite simple to switch.
15:53:11 <tinkster> manu: it would be strange if we suggested @version to detect but didn't define a @version attribute in 1.1. We need to be consistent.
15:53:34 <webr3> q+
15:53:55 <tinkster> manu: we'd have a big fight with HTMLWG if we added @version.
15:53:58 <manu1> ack [IPcaller]
15:54:21 <tinkster> toby: points out that HTML4, XHTML 1.x, HTML 3.2 and HTML 2.0 all had @version.
15:55:38 <ShaneM> why is it a bad idea to give people the opportuntity to tell a processor what version of RDFa is in a document they write? why?
15:55:47 <ShaneM> s/I write/they write/
15:55:47 <manu1> because they won't use it
15:55:56 <manu1> and it becomes useless very quickly if it's optional
15:56:10 <manu1> and if it's not optional, their documents break - same issue w/ @version in HTML4 vs HTML5
15:57:31 <tinkster> webr3: we need to not just announce which version of RDFa is being ignored, but whether RDFa is being used at all. What's our announcement mechanism?
15:58:37 <tinkster> manu: to completely ignore any document that doesn't have @version will not work - google, yahoo, etc want to get as much information as possible, whether or not document authors stuck to the rules.
15:58:42 <tinkster> ivan: agrees
16:00:01 <ivan> q+
16:00:13 <tinkster> We can require @version to be conformant for authors without forbidding consumers from being liberal in what they accept.
16:00:46 <manu1> ack ivan
16:01:42 <tinkster> ivan: my approach - an RDFa 1.1 processor that sees a 1.0 @version attribute SHOULD/MUST attempt to maintain backwards compatibility.
16:02:08 <ShaneM> Note that I do not think we need to specify any of this in RDFa 1.1. We said it in 1.0. incompletely. that horse has left the barn.
16:02:28 <tinkster> ... and thus we should allow people to use version="RDFa 1.1" for those people who want to target a specific version.
16:03:09 <ShaneM> FYI @version in XHTML+RDFa has a value of 'XHTML+RDFa 1.1"
16:04:52 <tinkster> ShaneM: we could say this in core. @version is still in the spec, we just don't say authors SHOULD use it any more.
16:06:11 <tinkster> manu: OK, we need to come up with @version values for HTML4+RDFa, HTML5+RDFa.
16:06:21 <manu1> version="HTML+RDFa 1.0"
16:06:22 <manu1> version="HTML+RDFa 1.1"
16:06:24 <manu1> version="HTML4+RDFa 1.1"
16:06:27 <manu1> version="HTML5+RDFa 1.1"
16:06:32 <webr3> RDFa 1.1
16:06:40 <manu1> version="RDFa 1.1"
16:07:22 <ShaneM> version="RDFa11" ?
16:07:30 <tinkster> Toby: I think I look for version =~ /RDFa\s*([0-9\.]+)/i
16:07:53 <webr3> rdfa="1.1"
16:08:54 <tinkster> Ivan: Nathan suggests rdfa="1.1", on the root element. Not such a bad idea.
16:09:08 <webr3> if you see @version = 1.0 then infer rdfa="1.0"
16:09:27 <Steven> I would rather argue for the use of an existing attribute
16:10:13 <Steven> <meta about="" property="rdfa:version" content="1.1"/>
16:10:25 <tinkster> ShaneM: Ben would say that many authors can't access <html> - they're using wikis and CMSes. What are they supposed to do?
16:10:37 <Knud> the default version is the latest available RDFa spec?
16:10:47 <ShaneM> knud: yes
16:11:12 <tinkster> Toby: Steven's idea would require parsing RDFa to know how to parse RDFa?
16:12:00 <tinkster> manu: We're past the hour now, so bye bye to those who can't stick around.
16:12:03 <Steven> Sorry I can't stay, have to get kids
16:12:16 <Zakim> -tinkster1
16:12:22 <Zakim> -Steven
16:19:23 <manu1> ShaneM: There is an issue w/ requiring @version
16:19:54 <manu1> ShaneM: If we want to introduce an rdfa attribute in the root element in rdfa core and assign it the value of "1.1" - I don't know about the HTML WG folks.
16:20:40 <ShaneM> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-SVG11-20020108/#version-att
16:22:57 <manu1> Nathan: RDFa is seen as an extension of HTML, not a part of HTML - if it's an extension, do we need a version for the extension?
16:23:24 <manu1> Nathan: In some cases it'll be seen as part of HTML in others it'll be seen as an extension - @version doesn't apply to everything.
16:23:36 <manu1> Nathan: No way to detect a version when people want to just place snippets in there.
16:24:08 <manu1> version="*RDFa 1.0*
16:24:11 <manu1> version="*RDFa 1.1*
16:24:14 <manu1> version="*RDFa 2.0*
16:26:19 <ShaneM> PROPOSAL: introduce @version in RDFa core with a value of RDFa 1.1. If it sees the 1.0 string, then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees 1.1 it processes as 1.1. if it sees nothing, it will be treated as the latest version of RDFa (currently 1.1).
16:27:33 <tinkster> -1 (SVG compat)
16:28:28 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
16:28:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, Knud, Benjamin, [IPcaller]
16:28:33 <ShaneM> so we are back to the 'rdfa' attribute?
16:28:33 <manu1> I don't like the rdfa attribute - what other language does that?
16:30:48 <webr3> does svg not use a doctype?
16:30:48 <manu1> Nathan: What about @version is supported in XHTML languages, but not in HTML family languages?
16:31:31 <Zakim> -Knud
16:33:24 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Re-introduce @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. If an RDFa Processor sees the string "RDFa 1.0", then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees "RDFa 1.1", it is processed as 1.1. If the processor does not see @version in XHTML+RDFa, the latest processing rules are used. If a Host Language doesn't allow specification via @version, the latest processing rules are used.
16:34:02 <tinkster> +1
16:34:06 <ShaneM> +1
16:34:35 <ivan> +1
16:34:36 <Benjamin> +1
16:34:36 <manu1> +1
16:34:46 <manu1> RESOLVED: Re-introduce @version in XHTML+RDFa 1.1. If an RDFa Processor sees the string "RDFa 1.0", then it is processed as 1.0. If it sees "RDFa 1.1", it is processed as 1.1. If the processor does not see @version in XHTML+RDFa, the latest processing rules are used. If a Host Language doesn't allow specification via @version, the latest processing rules are used.
16:34:50 <webr3> +1 (but recognise caveat that RDFa always has to maintain backwards compat the same way HTML does w/ different rules for processors, and XHTML essentially needs it's own per version strict rules modes)
16:35:31 <ivan> zakim, bye
16:35:31 <Zakim> leaving. As of this point the attendees were ShaneM, manu1, Ivan, +47.85.583.aaaa, tinkster1, Knud, +49.631.205.75.aabb, Benjamin, [IPcaller], Steven
16:35:31 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfa
16:35:37 <ivan> zakim, drop me
16:36:53 <manu1> Topic: Last Call timeframe
16:37:18 <manu1> Manu: We'll try for new Editors draft documents in 2 weeks
16:37:30 <manu1> Manu: 2nd Last Call publication in 3-4 weeks from now.
16:38:16 <webr3> zakim, drop me
16:40:58 <manu1> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:41:07 <manu1> RRSAgent, help?
16:41:07 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'help'
16:41:16 <manu1> RRSAgent, publish minutes
16:41:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/02/17-rdfa-minutes.html manu1# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000208